Scooter Libby Reads the News

by emptywheel

Libby's lawyers put on a breathtaking display explaining the reasons why they need to get every kitchen sink used at Time Magazine, NBC News, and the NYT (thanks to Tom Maguire for getting the files). The short version of their argument is that Matt Cooper is biased, Andrea Mitchell is suspicious, and Judy Miller is unreliable. But I'm also fairly certain that they are using Judy's and Cooper's efforts to maintain Libby's own confidentiality as evidence against their credibility.

I'm fairly sympathetic to the general direction, though not the scope, of Libby's Mitchell and Cooper requests. I think Libby ought to be able to establish, in court, what the hell Mitchell was talking about when she claimed to have known of Plame's employ at the CIA. And he ought to be able show that Cooper's notes do not mention some of the things Cooper has testified to (if in fact they do not).

But Libby's filing related to Judy and the NYT is a piece of work. An amazing piece of work.

Libby starts by totally mischaracterizing the nature of the lie he is accused of telling to Judy. He does this by citing the chronology in the first charge of the indictment, pretending that is what he is accused of lying to Judy about.

It alleges that on June 23 Mr. Libby "informed [Ms. Miller] that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA," Count One, P 14; that on July 8, Mr. Libby advised Ms. Miller of his belief that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, id. P 17; and that on July 12, Mr. Libby spoke with Ms. Miller about Ms. Wilson's employment, id. P 24.

Libby's filing then goes on to provide a shitload of evidence that Judy's comments about these meetings are inconsistent. But he points to precisely the same kind of language games that I have suggested Judy used to shield Libby and/or other members of the cabal. For example, Libby points to the language she uses to describe the June 23 meeting.

For example, she has written that she testified to the grand jury only that she "believed [her June 23 meeting with Mr. Libby] was the first time [she] had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the CIA."

Libby no doubt knows why she used that language better than I do, but I'd hazard a guess that Judy's hiding an earlier mention of Wilson, possibly by Libby himself. Libby goes on to complain about the language Judy used with her colleagues at the NYT.

She was even more equivocal with her New York Times colleagues, telling them that her notes "leave open the possibility that Mr. Libby told her [on June 23 that] Mr. Wilson's wife might work at the agency."

This is where I lost my breath. A lot of ink has been spilled about how hostilely Judy treated the NYT's story on her involvement. And on this account, I'd bet a great deal of money, enormous sums, that she used the qualified, "leave open the possibility" because Judy didn't want her colleagues to make the claim that her notes incriminated Libby on an IIPA violation. When in fact they did. Judy was protecting Libby when she used this qualifier!!! But now Libby is using it to impugn Judy as a witness.

And it gets better. Libby then goes onto to complain that Judy didn't admit to the June 23 conversation at first.

Notably, Ms. Miller did not remember that the June 23 conversation had even occurred until after her first grand jury appearance when she came across a notebook recording the interview.

Uh, yeah Scooter, she didn't recall that conversation because you gave her clear instructions that she shouldn't recall it, not if she could help it, and she went to some length to try to comply with your request.

Libby goes on at some length, repeatedly portraying comments Judy almost certainly made to limit the damage her testimony would do to her buddy Scooter as proof that she is unreliable.

But the whole argument is based on a ruse. I noted above, that Libby quotes from the chronology of the indictment, pretending that the events rehearsed in the chronology are those he has been accused of lying about. But that's a misrepresentation. Conveniently, Libby makes no mention of the only thing relating to Judy he has been accused of lying to investigators about:

LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;

Libby spends a good deal of time challenging the accuracy of details from Judy's testimony about the earlier meetings. But nowhere does he suggest she was mistaken or inaccurate in her general assertion that Libby had discussed Plame with her twice before the July 12 meeting. But if she wasn't mistaken about the general assertion, then the claim that Libby could have suggested on July 12 that he didn't know whether assertions about Plame were true--assertions he had already presented twice as true--is ridiculous!

Libby's not after Judy's notes to impugn her wrt the one Obstruction charge she is name in. He's after her notes so he can show just how many people were leaking to Judy about Joe Wilson and Plame. And to try and get her notes, he's attacking her for all the actions she took precisely to heroically protect Libby and the cabal.

It's a risky strategy, Scooter. At some point, Judy's going to grow weary of playing your fall gal.

Comments

[William Ockham]

Ok, I just commented on this at the bottom of the Rove thread. Isn't Libby claiming that everybody was talking about Plame and that means he had no reason to lie AND that nobody was talking about Plame and that means he had no reason to lie. I'm totally confused. Look at footnote 5, he makes both arguments in the same paragraph.

[emptywheel]

WO

Good catch, but I think their argument is slightly different. First, they're trying to do several things with this language--win broad access to the NYT's notes, but be able to respond to spin whatever they find as helpful to them. It seems the honestly don't know whether the NYT would have heard already about Plame. So they want to go after earlier Marin leaking (that Libby no doubt directed, so he's got a good idea that Martin, following the talking points, didn't use Plame's identity). But they want to include both possibilities (that someone mentioned Plame) just in case.

I said this over at DKos, though. I haven't read the media response to this. But I suspect they will not be as attuned to the inconsistencies WRT the indictment as you or I. I'm sure they can argue better than I to defend their First Amendment rights (though I doubt that it protects intra-office communication at NYT that is not otherwise protected under attorney-client privilege. But I question how well they'll be able to show that much of the requests from Judy, in particular, are totally irrelevant given her utterly minor part in the indictments.

[emptywheel]

Some other things I find interesting:

Bennett's cavet at FN 3, about whether or not Judy has been fully forthcoming to him. Bennett knows she hasn't. As do we. And Libby is using that to make Judy appear unreliable, when she's doing it for the cabal.

[John Forde]

William Ockham, I suspect Fitz may be using your razor.

[John Forde]

The Nexus of the Plame affair is the breathtaking crime of using a forgery to start a war. Eriposte is on that beat and has a new post up this morning,
"How 'Bought' Became 'Sought'".

[emptywheel]

On page 18, they appear to be setting up their argument about Martin. If she was only talking to reporters based on Wilson's credibility, then it must mean OVP was doing so. This goes to your point, William. He's trying to turn Martin into a friendly witness for him at trial.

[Jeff]

Does that mean that Team Libby knows or believes that Martin was not Pincus's source on Plame on July 12?

[Jeff]

Not quite, it seems - check out footnote 5 on p. 19, which basically shows that either way you slice it with Martin, they're going to try to turn her role to their advantage.

I take it the prosecution's alternative explanation for the relative rarity of administration officials disclosing info on Plame to reporters is that they knew to be careful with its disclosure, not that the information was not important, and Exhibit A in support of this alternative explanation is, of course, Fleischer. I am very curious now as to whether Martin is going to be a hostile witness for the prosecution or not.

[emptywheel]

Here's a thought. Rusert talked to NBC vice president after the Libby conversation. There must be some record of that. But I suspect that conversation would reflect badly on NBC's opinion of Libby. Which goes along with Russert's attempt to quash Fitz' subpoena because he wanted to stay on nice terms with Libby. Imagine if the record says, "Libby throws a hissy fit because Chris Matthews reported correctly. What an ass."

[Jim E.]

I found the descriptions of Miller's notebooks to be pretty interesting. She had all sorts of versions of the name, including Flame and Plame. I'd love to see with my own eyes those notebooks. I've always assumed Libby told her Flame/Plame directly, but the account of the notebooks given by Libby's lawyers makes me think it even more. I thought emptywheel nicely shows how Libby, though his lawyers, are going to trash Miller every which way, even though she single-handedly saved him from the worst possible charge on the table.

I wonder if Miller would ever turn on him if things get particularly nasty? Nah, no way. It would mean she'd admit to perjury during her previous testimony.

[Jim E.]

I do appreciate Libby's lawyers dry humor in footnote 6 explaining why it is not necessary for the NY Times to produce the announcement of the Wilson's marriage.

[William Ockham]

I find it a bit odd that, with all the trashing of Miller, they don't even mention the fact that she lost her notebook. If I were making the case that someone was unreliable, I would certainly bring that up.

[emptywheel]

So the Victoria Wilson notation--perhaps the only one--says, "Victoria Wilson -- works in unit." No we've got her using the words bureau and unit to refer to where Plame worked. Does the "works in unit" suggest Judy was talking to someone IN Plame's unit at CPD? Is there anyway the context would suggest Fleitz or Bolton were her source?

FWIW, if I had to guess, I'd guess that Bolton gave Judy the name and phone number of Wilson. If you buy my theory that Bolton would have gotten a shot at the INR memo, then he would have known before June 10 that Wilson was the unnamed ambassador. And I imagine it wouldn't have taken too much to get internal State data on Wilson's phone number.

[emptywheel]

Here's a question.

How does Libby know that Calabresi was the Time reporter who interviewed Wilson?

[&y]

Ockham: Isn't Libby claiming that everybody was talking about Plame and that means he had no reason to lie AND that nobody was talking about Plame and that means he had no reason to lie. I'm totally confused.

Not a lawyer, but back when I was active in an effort to organize the university's graduate students, lawyers explained to me that it's not uncommon to present two contradictory arguments simultaneously in legal proceedings--hoping that one or the other argument "sticks." They also mentioned that this tactic can backfire if you confuse the jury too much.

Of course, the unionization effort failed. So maybe these lawyers were full of it. Let me turn that one into a question: were these lawyers full of it?

[Jim E.]

"How does Libby know that Calabresi was the Time reporter who interviewed Wilson?"

I'm not sure that they "know" this since they qualify it with the word "probably."

The other co-authors of the article--Cooper and Dickerson--have penned their own accounts of their reporting without mentioning a call to Wilson (at least I think that is the case), so it is probably an educated guess that Calabresi, or some other unnamed staffer on Cooper's team, made the call to Wilson.

[somethingsrotten]

"How does Libby know that Calabresi was the Time reporter who interviewed Wilson?"

I think that Calabresi interview both of them for this article, and asked Libby what his reaction was to what Joe Wilson said.

In the article from July 17, 2003:

...

In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t.

...

In an exclusive interview Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME: "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report.

[emptywheel]

somethingsrotten

But isn't the second Cooper? My question is, why does Libby suspect Calabresi did the Wilson interview? I think Jim E provides a plausible explanation, but I just thought I'd ask.

[kim]

Jim E, what were the dates of all those references to Plame or Flame in Miller's notes?
===================================================

[obsessed]

Leopold on the radio:

I just heard a full 30 minutes of Jason Leopold being casually interviewed and taking questions on a liberal talk show.

With the usual caveat that the experts here generally assess Leopold's credibility as being somewhat less than Waas and more than the traditional media, I found it much more interesting to hear him speak that to parse through his carefully phrased articles.

The bottom line is that he sounded VERY confident of the following:

1) GJ meets tomorrow at 9:30 EST
2) Rove received a target letter a month ago
3) Fitz had charges drawn up a month ago for false statements and perjury, but not obstruction
4) The "no target letter" spin was carefully phrased by Luskin to mean "only in relation to Rove's most recent appearance"
5) The "nothing for at least 10 days" story was spin control to keep the story out of the news cycle.
6) A Friday press conference is predicted to be announced Thursday
7) The investigation will continue to remain open.
8) Rove will be indicted for false statements and perjury, and conceivably, but not probably, obstruction of justice.

Make of it what you will. We'll know soon enough.

[kim]

You better not prat, you better not lie,
Your gonna be sad, I'm tellin' you why,
Fizzlemas is coming, again.
=======================

[pollyusa]

obsessed

Do you know what show you were listening to? I would love to see if I can find a transcript.

[lukery]

obsessed - music to my ears (in fact all day i've been singing the start of New York, New York: start spreadin' the news, he's leavin' today...)

[obsessed]

I heard the interview on this station:

http://www.krxa540.com/

which broadcasts in Monterey CA, Humboldt CA, and Phoenix AZ.

And "Kim ====" -- (no offense to the other Kim) -- well, you may be right. This one may fizzle. And you know, Kim ====, I almost hope you are right. I certainly understand where you're coming from on this, because even though I disagree with his politics, Karl is such a good person, such a patriot, such a delightful and caring human being, that it would be a tragedy for his long career of selfless public service to end in disgrace and humiliation.

[kim]

Has anybody noticed how OUT those filings reveal Plame to have been?
==========================================